I can't believe that SR785 can have such a low input noise level (<1nV/rtHz). Review your calibration again.

It is also described in the manual that SR560 typically has the input noise level of 4nV/rtHz, although this number depends on which gain you use.

Wow! What's happened?

As the video showed good quality of resonances, I stopped by at the 40m on the way back home.

I looked at the error signals and found that they indicate high finesse and clear resonance of the sidebands.
The lock was immediate once the gain is set to be -0.004 (previous 0.05ish). This implies the optical gain is ~10 times larger than the previous configration.
The alignment was not easy as POPDC was saturated at ~27000.  I leave this as a daytime job.

As I misaligned the PRM, I could see that the lock hopped into the next higher order. i.e .from TEM00 to TEM01, from TEM01 to TEM02, etc
This means that the modes are closely located each other, but sufficiently separated to sustain each mode.

I definitely certify that cavity scans will give us meaningful information about the cavity.

During the scanning we were riddled by the fact the PDH error and the transmission peaks do not happen simultaneously.

After a little investigation, it was found that "LP100^2" filter is left on in the POPDC filter.

Moreover, it was also found that the whitening filter switches for the POPDC does not switch the analog counterpart.

These were the culprit why we never saw accidental hitting of the max transmission by the peaks when the cavity was not locked.

I know that the most of the whitening filter in the RF paths were checked before (by Keiko?), but the similar failure still exists in the POX path.
We should check for the whitening filters in the DC path as well and fix everything at once. I can offer assistance on the fixing part.

Rana mentioned the possibility that the PR2 curvature makes the impact on the mode stability. Entry 7988
Here is the extended discussion.

Hypothesis:

The small but non-negligible curvatures of the TT mirrors made the recycling cavity unstable or nearly unstable.

Conclusion:

If the RoC of the TT mirrors are -600 m (convex), the cavity would be barely stable.
If the RoC of the TT mirrors are less than -550m, the horizontal modes start to be unstable.
Assumption that all of the TT mirrors are concave should be confirmed.

Fact (I): Cavity stability

- The folded PRMI showed the mode stability issue. (L=6.78m from Jenne's entry 7973)
- The folded PRM-PR2-PR3-flat mirror cavity also showed the similar mode issue. (L=4.34m)
- The unfolded PRM-PR2 cavity demonstrated stable cavity modes. (L=1.91m)

Fact (II): Incident angle

- PRM 0deg
- PR2 1.5deg
- PR3 41deg

Fact (III): Mirror curvature

- RoC of PRM (PRMU02): +122.1m (measured, concave), or +115.6m (measured by the vendor)
- RoC of G&H mirrors: -600m ~ -700m (measured, I suppose the negative number means convex) (Jenne's entry 7851)
  [Note that there is no measurement of the phase map for the PR2 mirror itself.]
- RoC of LaserOptik mirrors: -625m ~ -750m (measured, I suppose that the measurement shows the mirrors are convex.) (Jan's entry 7627 and 7638)

Let's assume that the TT mirrors are always convex and have a single number for the curvature radius, say RTT

Cavity mode calculation with Zach's arbcav

1) The unfolded PRM-PR2 cavity:

The cavity becomes unstable when 0 > RTT > -122m  (This is obvious from the g-factor calculation)
==> The measured RoC of the TT mirrors predicts the cavity is stable. (g=0.98, Transverse Mode Spacing 3.54MHz)

2) The folded PRM-PR2-PR3-flat mirror cavity:

The cavity becomes unstable when RTT < -550 m
==> The measured RoC of the TT mirrors (RTT ~ -600m) predicts the cavity is barely stable (g=0.997, TMS ~600kHz).

- The instability occurs much faster than the unfolded case.
- The horizontal mode hits unstable condition faster than the vertical mode.
- The astigmatism mainly comes from PR3.

3) The folded PRMI:

The cavity becomes unstable when RTT < -550 m
==> The measured RoC of the TT mirrors (RTT ~ -600m) predicts the cavity is barely stable. (g=0.995, TMS ~500kHz)

- The instability occurs with almost same condition as the case 2)

The calculation result for the PRMI with RTT of -600 m. The code was also attached.

Q&A:

Q. What is the difference between unfolded and folded?
A. For the unfolded case, the PR2 reflect the beam only once in a round-trip.
For the folded case, each TT mirror reflects the beam twice. Therefore the lens power by the mirror is doubled.

Q. Why the astigmatism mainly comes from PR3?
A. As the angle of incidence is much bigger than the others (41deg).

Q. Why the horizontal mode is more unstable than the vertical mode?
A. Off-axis reflection of a spherical mirror induces astigmatism. The effective curvature of the mirror in the horizontal direction
is R / Cos(theta) (i.e. longer), while it is R Cos(theta) (i.e. shorter). Indeed, the vertical and horizontal ROCs are factor of 2 different
for the 45deg incidence.

Q. Why the stability criteria for the case 2) and 3) similar?
A. Probably, once the effective curvature of the PRM-PR2-PR3 becomes negative when RTT < -550 m.

Q. You said the case 2 and 3 are barely stable. If the TMS is enough distant form the carrier, do we expect no problem?
A. Not really. As the cavity get close to the instability, the mode starts to be inflated and get highly astigmatic.
For the case 2), the waist radii are 5.0mm and 3.7mm for the horzontal and vertical, respectively.
For the case 3), they are 5.6mm and 4.1mm for the horzontal and vertical, respectively.
(Note: Nominally the waist radius is 3.1mm)

Q. What do you predict for the stability of the PRM-PR2-Flat_Mirror cavity?
A. It will be stable. The cavity is stable until RTT becomes smaller than -240 m.

Q. If the TT mirrors are concave, will the cavity stable?
A. Yes. Particularly if PR3 is concave.

Q. Rana mentioned the possibility that the mirrors are deformed by too tight mounting of the mirror in a ring.
Does it impact the stability of the cavity?
A. Possible. If the curvature is marginal and the mounting emphasizes the curvature, it may meet the unstable condition.

Q. How can we avoid this instability issue?
A.
1. Use flatter mirrors or at least concave mirrors.
2. Smaller incident angle to avoid emphasis of the RoC in the horizontal direction
3. Use weaker squishing force for mounting of the mirrors
4. Flip the PR3 mirror in the mounting ring by accepting the compromise that the AR surface is in the cavity.

The expected finesse is 100ish. How much can we beleive the measured number of 50?
From the number we need to assume PR2 has ~93% reflectivity.
This does not agree with my feeling that the cavity is overcoupled.
Another way is to reduce the reflectivity of the PRM but that is also unlikely from the data sheet.

The scan passed the peak in 4ms according to the fitting.
How do the analog and digital antialiasing filters affect this number?

 Another possibility is to use a ring heater to correct the curvature. I talked a bit with Aidan about this.

0.764 and 0.751 do not give us the stdev of 0.005.

I have never seen any Yokogawa in vicinity.

Makes sense. I mixed up n and n-1

Probability function: X = (x1 + x2 + ... + xn)/n, where xi = xavg +/- dx

Xavg = xavg*n/n = xavg

dXavg^2 = n*dx^2/n^2
=> dXavg = dx/sqrt(n)

Xavg +/- dXavg = xavg +/- dx/sqrt(n)

This surprises me. I am curious to know the reason why we can't make the cavity stable by flipping the PR3 as PR3 was supposed to have more lensing effect than PR2 according to my statement.

I feel it's too hasty to use the PRMI.
I support the idea of the half-PRC test, to make an apple-to-apple comparison.

Make haste slowly.

It seems that the cavity trans looks much better than before. Cool.

At least the optical gain is ~x5 of the previous value. This means what we did was something good.

Looking forward to seeing the further analysis of the caivty...

The comment itself was added by me.
The difference between the previous and new measurements should be described by Riju.

In the entry 7984, the description has several PDs mixed up. The measurement was done with the MCREFL PD.
But the DC transimpedance of the thorlabs PD (5e3) was used, according to the text.
I first wonder if this is only a mistake not in the calculation but only in the elog due to a sloppy copy-and-paste.
But the resulting shot-noise-intercept current was 50uA, which is way too small
compared with a realistic value of 0.1~1mA. I have never seen such a good value with
C30642 at the resonant freq ~30MHz. That's why I said "hard to believe". I guessed this wrong
DC transimpedance was actually used for the calculation. 

You may wonder why this 50uA is unreasonable number.
Basically this is just my feeling and probably is same as Rana's feeling.
But "my feeling" can't be a scientific explanation. Here is some estimation.

Looking at my note in 2010:
https://wiki-40m.ligo.caltech.edu/40m_Library (Comparisons of the PD circuits by KA)

The expected shot noise intercept current (idc) is

idc = 2 kB T / (e Rres),

where Rres is the impedance of the resonant circuit at the resonant freq.

This Rres is expressed as

Rres = 1/(4 pi^2 fres^2 Cd^2 Rs),

where Cd and Rs are the capacitance and series resistance of the diode.

If we input realistic numbers,

Cd = 100pF
Rs = 10 Ohm
fres = 30MHz

We obtain, Rres ~ 300Ohm, and idc = 0.2mA

In other words, Rs needs to be 2~3Ohm in order to have idc = 50uA.
This is too small from the previous measurements.
Test Results for C30642 LSC Diode Elements by Rich Abbott

How about to measure the AR reflectivity at larger (but small) angles the extrapolate the function to smaller angle,
or estimate an upper limit?

The spot separation is

D = 2 d Tan(\phi) Cos(\theta), where \phi = ArcSin(Sin(\theta) * n)

D = 2 d Tan(\phi) Cos(\theta), where \phi = ArcSin(Sin(\theta) / n)         (<== correction by Manasa's entry)

\theta is the angle of incidence. For a small \theta, D is propotional to \theta.

So If you double the incident angle, the beam separation will be doubled,
while the reflectivity is an even function of the incident angle (i.e. the lowest order is quadratic).

I am not sure until how much larger angle you can use the quadratic function rather than a quartic function.
But thinking about the difficulty you have, it might be worth to try.

Don't  Shouldn't you apply a small misalignment to the input beam? Isn't that why the peak for the 1st-order is such small?

I, by chance, found  that my windows partition has Vision32 installed.
So I run my usual curvature characterization for the TT phasemaps.

They are found under this link
https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/40m_phasemap/40m_TT/（requires: LVC credentials)
or
/cvs/cds/caltech/users/public_html/40m_phasemap/40m_TT

asc/ (ascii files) --> .asc files are saved in Wyko ascii format.
bmp/ (screen shots of Vision32)
mat/ (Matlab scripts and results)
opd/ (Raw binary files)

Estimated radius of curvature

Mirror / RoC from Vision32 / RoC from KA's matlab code
G&H "A" 0864 / -527.5 m / -505.2 m
G&H "B" 0884 / -710.2 m / -683.6 m
LaserOptik SN1 / -688.0 m / -652.7 m
LaserOptik SN2 / -605.2 m / -572.6 m
LaserOptik SN3 / -656.7 m / -635.0 m
LaserOptik SN4 / -607.5 m / -574.6 m
LaserOptik SN5 / -624.8 m / -594.3 m
LaserOptik SN6 / -658.5 m / -630.2 m

The aperture for the RoC in Vision32 seems a bit larger than the one I have used in the code (10mm in dia.)
This could be the cause of the systematic difference of the RoCs between these, as most of our mirrors
has weaker convex curvature for larger aperture, as seen in the figure. (i.e. outer area is more concave
after the subtration of the curvature)

I did not see any structure like Newton's ring which was observed from the data converted with SXMimage. Why???

>> "What has changed since:"

Recently the REFL path has been rearranged after I touched it just before Thanksgiving.
(This entry)

If the lenses on the optical table is way too much tilted, this astigmatism happens.
This is frequently observed as you can find it on the POP path right now.

Also the beam could be off-centered on the lens.

I am not sure the astigmatism is added on the in-air table, but just in case
you should check the table before you put much effort to the in-vacuum work.

For the hexagonal one, insert one of the glass plate only half. Use a 1"x.5" piece if exists.

For the diamond one, you don't need the forth glass piece.

I undertook the investigation of the AS55 PD. I found the PD is not broken.

I tested the PD on the PD test bench and it works just fine.

I attatched the characterization result as there has been no detailed investigation of this PD as far as I remember.

The transimpedance gain at 55MHz is 420Ohm, and the shotnoise intercept current is 4.3mA.

10010 Ohm for POP55 vs 50 Ohm for AS55 (cf. http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/4763)

I wonder if you used an LED flash light, which emits no IR.

[Steve, Yuta, Koji]

The ETMX heavy door was removed.

[Rana, Yuta, Koji]

21:05 at the pressure of 10torr
V3 closed. RV1 manually closed. RPs were turned off. And the bellows between RV1 and the rughing pumps are disconnected.

apache has been restarted.
How to: search "apache" on the 40m wiki

- IMC PDH demodulation phase adjustment

- Permanent setup for green transmission DC PDs  on the PSL table

One of the biggest issues we had was that any Q signals (i.e. the quadrature where PRCL is absent.) of REFL11/33/55/(165) haven't been consistent each other.
i.e. We never had reliable lock of MICH with REFL_any_Q, regardless of the resonant condition. This is definitely one of the things to be tried in order to prepare for the full lock.

We don't trust any demodulation phases of any PDs any more as the previous PRC mode (or say, absence of the stable mode) was unreasonable to determine any of the demodulation phases.

I remember that the POP DC saturates at 27000. You may need to reduce the gain switch again.

The AS OSA and/or POP BBPD would be useful for the sideband PR gain estimation.

How much is the exact resonant frequency?

And what's the unit of the plot? The resonant "transimpedance" in the unit of Ohm can not be ~10⁰.

VERY GOOD!
This is how the carrier lock PRMI should look like.

- There is more room to improve the differential ITM alignment to make the dark port more dark, then you will gain more PRG

- The AS spot is definitely clipped.

- What about normalizing POPDC to indicate the carrier recycling gain?

- When you align the PMC, confirm FSS SLOW DC is around zero. Some region of the slow thermal actuation makes the laser source emit at multiple frequencies. In the case, the cavity visibility get worse.

- Do you guys think we can determine if the TT is longitudinally quiet enough? Is there any comparison between the simple Michelson and the PRC motion in m/rtHz?

At the time you, den and I worked together, we could not lock the X-arm on TEM00 with the FM1s of the POX11 on.
We could lock the arm only on the higher order mode but he gain was low. Once we turned off the FM1s, we immediately
locked the cavity on TEM00.

Don't you have the direct measurement of the TF with FM1 on and off?

PRMI for the sidebands may have different situation. Investigate our wiki to find our the simulation result.

Also I'm not confident how much is the modulation depth at 55MHz is.

Last night I measured the modulation depth of the MC incident beam.

Method:

The beam is taken from one of the  PO beam at the wedge plate before the IMC.
After removing the knife edge to dump this beam, the beam is sent to the west side
of the PSL table and put into the OSA cavity.
[The beam dump was returned after the measurement.]

I had some confusion and after all I use the OSA labeled as AS OSA rather than the one on the PSL table.
[The AS OSA was returned to the AP table.]

The transmission was detected by PDA255 and filtered by ITHACO 1201 preamp with G=10, no HPF, 30kHz LPF.
It was confirmed that the peak amplitudes are not reduced by the LPF filter. The resulting time series
was recorded by an oscilloscope.

Three measurements have been taken. The 11MHz peaks are offset by the carrier peak. They appropriately
removed. The ratio of the sideband and carrier peaks is converted to the modulation depth using the following formula.

P_sb / P_ca = [J1(m)/J0(m)]^2

Measurement

The modulation depth for the 11MHz: 0.190 +/- 0.003

The modulation depth for the 55MHz: 0.2564 +/- 0.0003

The three scans showed very similar numbers. That's why the statistical error is such small.
I don't think the systematic error is not such good.

This number is much different form the previous meaurement by Mirko.

http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/5519 m=0.14 (11MHz) & 0.17 (55MHz)
but the measured voltages and the modulatio depths are inconsistent.

http://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:8080/40m/5462 m=0.17 (11MHz) & 0.19 (55MHz)

Probably the modulation depths should be checked by the IMC again.
However, it is certain that the 55MHz modulation exists, and even larger than the 11MHz one.

The next is to confirm that the modulation frequency is matched with the IMC FSR.
It is to make sure that the modulation is transmitted to the main IFO without attenuation.

How to calculate the accumulated round-trip Gouy phase (and namely the transverse mode spacing) of a general cavity
only from the round-trip ABCD matrix

T1300189

I took a look at the laser. It is probably the LD TEC (DTEC) failure.
As the temperature of the LD (DTMP) gradually deviated from 25degCish,
the DTEC voltage also went up from 2Vish to 2.1, 2.2... 

When DTEC reaches 3V, it stopped lasing. This cools the diode a bit, and
it start lasing but repeat the above process.

I am not sure which of the head and controller has the issue.

The situation did not improve much by reducing the pumping current (ADJ: -15).

BTW, Turning on/off the noise eater did not change the situation.

I think the head/controller set should be sent out to JDSU and find how they will say.

1) Annalisa is going to start  working on mode profiling and beat note search for the old MOPA NPRO.

2) In the meantime, Manasa is working on the end table items. This will be reviewed by KA in the afternoon.

The laser at ATF is moved to the 40m when the status of 1) and 2) is determined by KA to be reasonable.

We also make the beat note measurement for the ATF laser too.
 

Give us more info on the elog:
What PD are you using? How much power the beams on the recombining BS are? What kind of BS is it?
How are you looking for the beat note? (on the scope? or spectrum analyzer?)
What was the scanned temp range?

Three points to be checked:

- Polarization

- Alignment

- Temperature

I've tested Perkin-Elmer InGaAs PDs at OMC Lab.

- The diode impedances were measured with the impedance measurement kit. Reverse bias of 5V was used.

- Diode characteristics were measured between 10MHz and 100MHz.

- 4-digit numbers are SN marked on the can

- Ls and Rs are the series inductance and resistance

- Cd is the junction capacitance.

- i.e. Series LCR circuit o--[Cd]--[Ls]--[Rs]--o

C30665GH, Ls ~ 1nH

0782 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.3Ohm, Cd=219.9pF
1139 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=9.9Ohm, Cd=214.3pF
0793 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.5Ohm, Cd=212.8pF

C30642G, Ls ~ 12nH

2484 EG&G, Rs=12.0Ohm, Cd=99.1pF
2487 EG&G, Rs=14.2Ohm, Cd=109.1pF
2475 EG&G glass crack, Rs=13.5Ohm, Cd=91.6pF
6367 ?, Rs=9.99Ohm, Cd=134.7pF
1559 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.37Ohm, Cd=94.5pF
1564 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=7.73Ohm, Cd=94.5pF
1565 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.22Ohm, Cd=95.6pF
1566 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.25Ohm, Cd=94.9pF
1568 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=7.83Ohm, Cd=94.9pF
1575 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.32Ohm, Cd=100.5pF

C30641GH, Perkin Elmer, Ls ~ 12nH

8983 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.19Ohm, Cd=25.8pF
8984 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.39Ohm, Cd=25.7pF
8985 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.60Ohm, Cd=25.2pF
8996 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.02Ohm, Cd=25.7pF
8997 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.35Ohm, Cd=25.8pF
8998 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=7.89Ohm, Cd=25.5pF
9000 Perkin-Elmer, Rs=8.17Ohm, Cd=25.7pF

Note:  Calculated Ls&Rs of straight wires
  1mm Au wire with dia. 10um -> 1nH, 0.3 Ohm
20mm BeCu wire with dia. 460um -> 18nH, 0.01 Ohm

I'm still waiting for the follow-up analysis of the modulation freq tuning.

Please add the discussions on the cavity absolute length (and its change, adjustment precision),
identification of the peaks, before/after comparison of the plot, the effect of the MC REFL PD response,
and comparison of the cavity linewidth vs deviation of the 55MHz SBs from the resonance.

> The two REFL55 signals

Wow! It's a good news.
I think this is our first ever lock of PRMI with the REFL I/Q signals.

We kept having difficulty to obtain MICH from the REFL beam.

Next time could you make calibration of REFL55 MICH and AS55 MICH and compare the ratio with any simulation?

Breadboards may not be suitable for a reliable work. Why don't you switch to any protoboard and real soldering?

Beautiful double peaks. I don't see the triple zero-crossings. Is this because you adjusted the phase correctly (as predicted)?

Don't you want to have a positive number for POP22? Should we set the demod phase in the configuration script for the positive POP22, shouldn't we?

When I came to the 40m, I found most of the FB signals are dead.

The suspensions were not dumped but not too much excited. Use watchdog switches to cut off the coil actuators.

Restarted mxstream from the CDS_FE_STATUS screen. The c1lsc processes got fine. But the FB indicators for c1sus, c1ioo, c1iscex/y are still red.

Sshed into c1sus/ioo, run rtcds restart all . This made them came back under control.

Same treatment for c2iscex and c1iscey. This made c1sus stall again. Also c1iscey did not come back.

At this point I decided to kill all of the rt processes on c1sus/c1ioo/c1iscex/c1iscey to avoid interference between them.
And started to restart from the end machines.

c1iscex did not come back by rtcds restart all.
Run lsmod on c1iscey and found c1x05 persisted stay on the kernel. rmmod did not remove the c1x05 module.
Run software reboot of c1iscey. => c1iscey came back online.

c1iscey did not come back by rtcds restart all.
Run software reboot of c1iscex. => c1iscex came back online.

c1ioo just came back by rtcds restart all.

c1sus did not come back by rtcds restart all.
Run software reboot of c1sus => c1sus came back online.

This series of restarting made the fb connections of some of the c1lsc processes screwed up.
Run the following restarting commands => all of the process are running with FB connection.
rtcds restart c1sup
rtcds restart c1ass
rtcds restart c1lsc

Enable damping loops by reverting the watchdog switches.

All of the FE status are green except for the c1rfm bit 2 (GE FANUC RFM CARD 0).

Еру ьс шы тщц дщслув фтв фдшптувю

Фдыщ ш кфт еру ащддщцштп ыскшзе ещ щаадщфв еру ЬС ЦАЫ ыукмщю

I blame Den for russian keyboard installation on the control machines.

ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC2_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC2_PIT_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC2_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC2_YAW_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC1_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC1_PIT_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC1_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC1_YAW_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC3_ASCPIT_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC3_PIT_COMM&
ezcaservo -r 'C1:SUS-MC3_ASCYAW_OUT16' -g '0.00001' -t 60 C1:SUS-MC3_YAW_COMM&

PMC aligned. C1:PSL-PMC-PMCTRANSPD improved from 0.72ish to 0.835ish.

I tried to reproduce the locking situation described in this entry tonight.
The momentary lock was regularly seen but there was no stable lock.

I wonder why the actuators are always saturated. The feedback signals have the dominant component at ~400Hz.

It would also be nice if the servos have some immunity to gain fluctuation.

I didn't check how the situation of the AP table is. I'll look into some details tomorrow.

The FE web view seems not up-to-date, does it? ( maybe for a year)

https://nodus.ligo.caltech.edu:30889/FE/c1mcs_slwebview_files/index.html

The fibers should be routed beneath the electrical cables.
They should be fixed on the table for strain relieving.
The slack of the fibers should be nicely rolled and put together at the splitter side.

These are expected to be done next time when the fiber team work around the table.

We also expect to have the table photo every time the work of the day is finished.

Last night I worked on the several locking configurations:

General preparations / AS table inspection

- The AS beam looked clipped. I went to the AP table and confirmed this is a clipping in the chamber.
  This may be fixed by the invacuum PZTs.

Modulation frequency tuning

RFPD Mon of the MC demodulator was check with the RF analyzer. Minimized the 25.8MHz (=55.3-29.5MHz) peak by changing the marconi freq.
This changed the modulation freq from 11.066147MHz to 11.066134MHz. This corresponds to the change of the MC round-trip length from
27.090952m to 27.090984m (32um longer).

Michelson tests

- I wonder why I could not see good Michelson signal at REFL ports.

- I roughly aligned the Michelson. On the AP table, the RF analyzer was connected to the REFL11 RF output.
  By using "MAX HOLD" function of the analyzer, I determined that the maximum output of the 11.07MHz peak
  was -61.5dBm.

- I went to the demodboard rack. I injected -61dBm from DS345 into the RFEL11 demodboard. This produced
  clean sinusoidal wave with the amplitude of 4 count. The whitening gain was 0dB.

- The output from the PD cable was -64.0dBm. So there is ~2.5dB loss in the cable. Despite this noise, the demodulation
  system should be sufficiently low noise. i.e. the issue is optical

- The Michelson was locked with AS55Q. And the REFL11 error signals were checked.Fringe like feature was there.
  This suggested the scattering from the misaligned PRM. The PRM was further misaligned. Then some reasonable
  (yet still noisy) Michelson signal appeared. (Usual misaligned PRM is not at the right place)

  Q. How much scattering noise (spurious cavity between PRM and the input optics) do we have when the PRM is aligned?
  Q. Where should we put the glass beam dumps in the input optics?
  Q. Can we prepare "safe" misaligned place for the PRM with the beam dump?

- The Michelson was locked with REFL11Q. From the transfer function measurement, the gain difference between AS55Q (whitening gain 24dB)
  and REFL11Q was 32dB. The whitening gain was 0dB. In fact I could not lock the Michelson with the whitening gain 33dB (saturation???)
  The element in the Input matrix was 1, The gain of the servo was +100. BS was actuated.

Coupled cavity tests

- At least REFL11 is producing reasonable signals. So what about the other REFL ports? The Michelson signals in the other frequencies
  were invisible. So I decided to use three-mirror coupled cavity with the loss PRC.

- Aligned X arm, Misaligned ETMX, ITMY. Aligned PRM.

- Locked the PRM-ITMX cavity with REFL11 and REFL33.

- Aligned ETMX. If I use REFL11I for the PRC locking, I could not lock the coupled cavity. But I could with REFL33I.
  This is somewhat familiar to me as this is the usual feature of the 3f signal.

- The coupled cavity could be locked "forever". To realize this I needed to tweak the normalization factor from 1.0 to 1.6.
  Q. How does the coupled cavity change the response of the cavity? Can we compensate it by something?
  Q. Measure open loop transfer functions to check if there is any issue in the servo shapes.

- Transmission during the lock is 3.2 while the nominal TRX with PRM misaligned was 0.93.
  This corresponds to power recycling gain of 0.17.

 - X arm:

    - Source: POX11I, phase 79.5 deg, whitening gain 36dB
    - Input matrix: POX11I->1.0->XARM, Normalization TRX*1.60
    - XARM servo gain +0.8, actuation ETMX
    - XARM trigger 0.25 up, 0.05 down. XARM Filter trigger untouched.

- PRC: (sideband locking)
    - Source: REFL33I, phase -34.05 deg, whitening gain 30dB
    - Input matrix: REFL33I->1.0->PRCL, Normalization None
    - PRCL servo gain +4.0, actuation PRM
    - PRCL trigger None

- Same test for the Y arm. At the moment ETMY did not have the OPLEV.
  Same level of transmission (~3.3)

 - Y arm:

    - Source: POY11I, phase -61.00 deg, whitening gain 36dB
    - Input matrix: POY11I->1.0->YARM, Normalization TRX*2.1
    - YARM servo gain +0.25, actuation ETMX
    - YARM trigger 0.25 up, 0.05 down. YARM Filter trigger untouched.

- PRC: (sideband locking)
    - same as above

Sideband PRMI attempt

    - Now I got some kind of confidence on the REFL33 signal.
    - So I tried to get any stable setup for sb PRMI, then to find any reasonable MICH signals anywhere else than AS55Q.
    - With REFL33I(PRCL) & AS55Q(MICH), I got maximum ~10sec lock. It regularly locked. It was enough long to check
      the spectrum on DTT. But it was not enough long to find anything about the MICH signals at the REFL ports.

    - I tried REFL33Q for MICH. The lock was even shorter but could lock for 1~2 sec.

    Q. What is the cause of the lock loss? I did not see too much angluar fluctuation. The actuation was also quiet (below 10000).

- PRCL: (sideband locking)
    - Same as above except for
      - the PRCL servo gain +0.05, No limitter at the servo output.
      - Trigger POP22I (low pass filtered by LP10) 20 up, 3 down

- MICH:
    - AS55Q -24.125 24dB -> x1.0 -> MICH -0.7, No limitter -> ITMX/Y differential
    or
    - REFL33Q -34.05dB -> x2.0 -> MICH same as above
    - For both case, trigger POP22I (low pass filtered by LP10) 20 up, 3 down

At this point Jenne came back from dinner. Explained what I did and handed over the IFO.

No.... what I told was to put the roll next to the splitter, not on the table.
The table area is more precious than the rack space.

Koji> The slack of the fibers should be nicely rolled and put together at the splitter side.

I contacted Den about malfunctioning of the Yarm ASS.

He found the scripts were modified during the attempt to make it available for Xarm (cf. a related elog entry)
So far, he could manage to make the current scripts being modified to run.
A striptool file is still missing but this is what we can handle locally.

I thank Den for the remote caring of the issue despite the limited network bandwidth.

When I talked with Den via phone, he recommended to use the trigger and normalization with POP110I.
So I decided to try this approach. Also I investigated how the REFL33 signals are useful.

I could find the state where the PRMI(sb) locks regularly, although the lock is ~1min at most.

PRCL: REFL33I
whitening gain 30dB, -14.0deg (finely tuned in lock)
-> x1.0 -> Triggered by POP110I (20up, 1down)
-> Normalized by POP110I x0.04
-> Gain 0.2~0.12 FM3, 4, 5, 6 always on, no triggered FMs
-> PRM

MICH: REFL33Q
whitening gain 30dB, -14.0deg (finely tuned in lock)
-> x1.0 -> Triggered by POP110I (20up, 1down)
-> Normalized by POP110I x0.04
-> Gain -20 FM4, 5 always on, no triggered FM
-> ITMX (-1.0) and ITMY (+1.0)

I needed to tune the phase very precisely to reach this state. Also the alignment of the michelson and PRM
was very crtiical to acquire the lock.

Later in the same night I was plagued by PRM alignment drift. It seems that the PRM alignment is bistable or
slightly drifting in pitch. I had to align PRM continuously. When the PRMI is locked, the alignment fluctuation
was mainly in yaw. This was as people commented before.